Rarely has an alarmist handed us such a big gift, as John Cook did this week. His graph below shows that reductions in the most potent greenhouse gases CFC, CH4 and N2O have been close to the level of Hansen’s Scenario C.
Simply Wrong: Jan-Erik Solheim on Hansen 1988
So what exactly was Scenario C? In his 1988 paper, Hansen wrote
scenario C assumes a rapid curtailment of trace gas emissions, such that the net climate forcing ceases to increase after the year 2000.
What Cook is implying is that we have done a phenomenal job of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and have nearly achieved Hansen’s scenario C state of no new forcings. We have already accomplished far beyond the requirements of Kyoto, or anything they dreamed up in Copenhagen or Cancun.
But it is better than it seems, because Cook also shows that temperatures are already below Scenario C. Mission accomplished! Time for climate alarmists to declare victory and move on.
Thank you John.
The ‘climate deniers’ have been recently re-educated that the Hansen 1988 paper is not as prescient as Hansen’s 1981 paper. Both papers fill pages of journal space to obfuscate the simple fitting of a WAG’d exponential temperature curve to historical temperatures, but in 1988 Hansen cooked his goose by making the positive exponent too large., allowing his predictions to be falsified before he retired.
Eventually someone will try an imaginary exponent and ‘discover’ climate cycles.
You’d think Cook would feel at least a little embarrasment and show at least a little caution in his pronouncements, considering how many times he’s shot himself in the foot & then stuffed the bloody thing in his mouth.
Cluelessness is bliss.
Steve, I think they are moving on. Rio+20 doesn’t give it top billing…… They’ve led with some sustainable something or another and biodiversity gobblygook. It’s really funny in a sad and pathetic sort of way. The watermelons are getting peeled and exposing their true purpose.
Stephen, skeptical science keep doing the pea and thimble trick. The predictions were made that emissions of CO2 etc would increase temperatures — so Cook analyses whether they succeed or fail by “radiative forcing”.
I unpeeled his similar work pretending the IPCC was right in 1990.
http://joannenova.com.au/2012/05/the-ipcc-1990-far-predictions-were-wrong/
I was particularly pleased with this debunking…
Thanks Jo!